I feel it would be simpler to just have them apply to soak against magic, which while imperfect is much easier to describe.
@borogove: That's what I was thinking too last night 
Instead of errata-ing wound penalties, it might be easier to errata spell damage, writing it as "Spell damage is stress die + spell bonus - stress die - soak - wound penalties".
This is not perfect (as noted, it doesn't include falling, or getting tossed into lava), but for most instances, it should work.
Also, due to the big targets, high soak problem, I'm still wondering about considering total wound penalties an incapacitating factor :-/
Yes. Spells with a +X effect with no targeting roll can not be dodged, so the defence roll against such spells is 0 + a stress die.
This means spells now have a defence roll, not a soak roll.
It would if you rolled two ones....... The more common case (in a game setting) of someone stuck in a blizzard, if they already have some frostbite they are more likely to die. Why not apply wound penalties to environment, and depend on the storyguide stepping in when silly results such as the double 1 deadly ice cup shows up?
If that was decided, in wound penalties section of the rules one could write wound penalties apply to all actions, however, they can only ever apply once. If wound penalties have already applied to a defence roll, they will not apply to the soak roll. If there was no defence roll, wound penalties will apply to the soak rolls.
From my experience with another system (cof cof, D&D, cof, cof) defining "attack" isn't straightforward.
The suggestion of applying damage to soak against magic seems to be the easiest to implement.
This brings it's own problems. If you give a defense roll, then you must give an attack roll to spells (even if just saying spells with +X damage have a 0 Attack Total). Would these be penalized by the caster wounds? Why do mundane attacks have a stress roll, but not magic attacks? What if you have some kind of magical defense (say, a vitkir rune giving +X to Defense Total). Should it apply to magic? What if it's specifically created to defend against such magics?
Also, it is a substantial shift from the way magic currently works, and would require rewriting A LOT of things. I'd say it's something to consider for Ars Magica 6e (if/when it comes), but not for an errata.
1 Like
That's what I'd mentioned earlier. If you issue errata (plural, as there are several spots that would need changing) for non-Combat Soak Total, you would probably also want to add an erratum for this.
It wouldn't be errata, but I feel like a Mastery Ability that increases damage would be simple and go a long way to fixing what some people want fixed without screwing up a lot of the good stuff about how things work now.
As there would be no action, this would require further errata.
Because people in a blizzard or hot sun don't die in a minute. The hand in ice was just one of several examples. Everyone close to the equator or far north should be dead this way.
We could, but should we? Consider for a moment that a person who is severely beaten and left in the dsert is more likely to die of exposure than a person who is healthy- furthermore as they are left in the desert longer and "wounds" accumulate they will eventually face death. The hypothetical glass of water should probably have something like a -8 or higher damage modifier- it is extremely rare for someone to take a light wound by putting their hand into a glass of ice water. As such my suggestion would be to let the soak penalty be applied for both environmental and spell damage. I do not see why dropping someone into a normal bonfire should ignore wound penalties while magically creating a bonfire to surround a person would not.
2 Likes
True, but people in fire, concentrated acid, etc, do die in a minute. It doesn't take much for a SG to decide in a blizzard, the rolls are once every 5 minutes. In a heat stroke type environment the rolls are once an hour.
1 Like
Yes, even faster, and that's what you get when you apply the rules without (yup, without) Wound Penalty. Without applying Wound Penalty they die in way less than a minute, more like 50-50 chance (commonly worse) you get through the 1st round, and even then you probably have a mortal wound from that 1st round.
Sure. But if we're talking about issuing errata, why would you intentionally break a rule so that everyone who wants anything functional will have to house-rule to change the issued errata? It's like taking parts from your gearing to fix the motor of your car (if the parts were interchangeable); you haven't really fixed the car, just moved the break. If your auto mechanic were to do that, you wouldn't think well of them. You should have the same thought in this case. That's why I was saying that issuing the several required errata to make the change would also mean more errata should be issued to fix the new breaks that are created.
Meanwhile, as your suggestion seems to be that asking people to make house rules is the solution to part of this, it would be way, way simpler to ask people to house-rule how they'll stick Wound Penalty into combat rather than issuing something on the order of half a dozen errata plus asking people to make such a house rule. So this implication looks extremely hypocritical to me.
I agree. And since we get tons more realistic results without applying Wound Penalty in these instances, that says to me the current method is far more reasonable for both, maintaining that consistency.
Personally, I hate the idea that nearly everyone here seems to love that all you need are 10 green grogs and two leaders to take down really huge beings (yes, even beyond Size +20) in very little time unless that huge being has powers to automatically take out groups. Cleverness isn't needed. I don't get why people like that so much.
The alternative isnât that better either. With a cap these grogs will give what, 30 heavy wounds to the target (in due time)? They can leave this +20 size beast half-beaten, but not kill it (except by luck). If the beast escapes, it is very likely to die anyway (it's unlikely it will recover from that many wounds).
Any solution will fail against certain corner cases (and I'd say 10 grogs ganging up a Leviathan with it incapable of reacting is a corner case). It is not possible to proof the system against everything.
2 Likes
The problem about very large creatures is another, IMO. A size 0 person doesnât fight against 10 size -20 creatures. These creatures are dangerous when they become a swarm (say, a bee swarm). In the same sense, 10 regular grogs shouldnât be effective against a size +20 creature.
But this is a different problem altogether, not one of adding or not adding wound penalties, but rules that cover for opponents with very different sizes.
One worth tackling, but maybe not here and now.
1 Like
So you think it is realistic for a person to just sit in a bonfire for hours on end without dying, just taking medium or heavy wounds one after another until days later when some of those wounds worsen? Unless of course you get enough magical assistance to recover from your bonfire spa visit.
no, and if you read my post or did the math properly, you would see that that is not the result if you do not apply Wound Penalties. With no Wound Penalties applied the the person dies in round 1 roughly 50-50. And a good portion of the remaining time the person is mortally wounded in round 1.
If you want to make an argument here where serious changes to the rules are being considered, please don't totally make up random stuff like this. It gets in the way of debating valid stuff, which most people here are doing.
Speaking of my surprise above, have you guys actually done the math on this for regular combat to see what you get this way? First the general math:
For regular combat +Size keeps Medium Wounds equally likely, as the threshold rises as quickly as Quickness falls. Light Wounds become far more likely, and beyond Medium Wounds become far less likely. Meanwhile, losing initiative becomes much more likely, so you'll probably take a pile of Light Wounds before acting. That skews everything quickly.
And now for an example. Let's start with a good knight: Init +5, Att +20, Def +15, Dam +10, Soak +25. And then we'll turn that into a Size +20 Giant who is still this fabulous knight. Our Giant has Init -15, Att +20, Def -5, Dam +50. Letâs say our grogs (2 trained groups of 5 green grogs I proposed) have Init +1, Att +8, Def +5 (figuring dodging only), Dam +5, one with Leadership 5 (after specialty). Thatâs basically giving them 3-4 on Abilities and +1 on relevant Characteristics. So theyâre fairly weak, right? They are nearly guaranteed initiative. Round 1 theyâll do about 10 Light Wounds. Round 1 the giant kills one. Round 2 the remaining do a little worse than 5 Light Wounds, but letâs round down, while their friends regroup. So thatâs 15 Light Wounds. Round 2 the giant has a 50-50 chance to kill a grog. Letâs round in the giantâs favor and make it as effective as possible, killing the other vanguard. Round 3 the reformed group does 4 Medium Wounds while the others regroup. Round 3 the giant misses. Round 4 the giant takes 8 Medium Wounds. Round 5 the giant is dead unless lucky enough to be mortally wounded and live to die in round 6. So 10 weak grogs on average can kill this Size +20 giant (more than 5 times the weight of a battleship). Thatâs your standard result for these weaklings with no buffs from magi.
1 Like
There is a much, much better solution to all of this with just a small rules tweak, but one that would require errata all over the place: Minimal Wound (scratches, small bruises, etc. giving 0 penalty) level below Light Wound, and apply Wound Penalties as others would like here (to non-combat damage and all wounded defense). Bigger Size no longer makes you easier to kill in combat. Things like ice-water and hot sun will give you cramps and mild sunburn unless you're exposed for a while and things get worse. Huge beings will be hard to hurt, but once you get going, then they'll get finished off the way many here want. Minimal Wound can also be the gauge for certain things kicking in (certain toxins, etc.).
Unless I'm misunderstanding your idea, this wouldn't solve anything, really. Imagine a creature with Minimal (1-20), Light (21-40),etc, and Soak +0. Now, imagine a creature with Minimal (0), Light (1-20), Medium (20-40),..., and Soak +20. Exactly the same thing. Creating a Minimal Wound category has the same net effect as increasing the creature's Soak Total.
As for your giant against grogs example, you can't design an arbitrary creature and say it's a good example, specially because you designed it to have size 0 and then increased it's size to +20. The most we can say is that you designed a giant creature that is very weak if played according to the rules.
I agree that trained groups, even of weak characters, are very strong. Specially in fights against a solo opponent. But the truth is, the rules weren't built with +20 size creatures in mind (even if there is a chart on RoP:M with creatures of this size). +10 size is already stretching it. Seriously. Try to build a Size +20 giant using the rules in RoP:M. You need 60 Might just to buy "Gigantic" 20 times.
I'll say more. It might be the weird guy in me talking, but why did this fight start in equal terms? Why didn't the giant threw a house on the grogs as they closed? And also, assuming the giant kicked them, he killed only one person with each attack (this guy foot should be 30 meters long if I'm not mistaken)?
Once more, Size +20 doesn't fit the rules. And shouldn't be played by the rules either, if you really want a creature of this size.
PS: The weird guy in me also says to constrain the capability of the grogs to form trained groups (through the story, we don't need to change the rules for that), and/or to stop putting solo monsters against them (or at least give the monster the capability to attack multiple enemies).
1 Like
Some maths. The rules say one roll every turn. 10 a minute, 600 an hour. The moment we say it's hot or cold enough to damage someone, they are doomed, regardless of the damage bonus. There's 6 double 1s in the first hour. 2 hours, there a triple 1. The exploding dice kill.
If I magically keep a cup of ice from melting and keep someone's hand immersed, they die, wound penalty or not. If I say the punishing sun does damage, we have no Pyramids, as those shirtless slaves die on the first seriously hot day.
If we want to do more maths, drop an elephant sized (+4) Giant in a vat of boiling water. +12 damage. A 20 soak for a size 4 giant seems reasonable. We need a 45 on the die to kill him. Two 1s doesn't do it, and even Three 1s is just over 50% kill rate. A couple of hours casually immersed in boiling water. He drowns before he broils! That changes with wound penalties.
I'll return to my point about the rules being a numerical abstraction that can't map reality perfectly, which is why I'm talking about the SG stepping in when the rules don't work.
The rules are great for bonfires, acid, etc, however, they don't work so well for long term exposure to heat or cold. As short term exposure to extreme heat, acid, etc is more common, I'm happy that's where the rules work well. It's about making the rules work for most cases.
Environmental Damage and spells having the wound penalties factored in make magic meaningful against big monsters. The rules need to work at all levels. We can't point at an optimised fighting group or incantation of lightning as the solution. Git Gud isn't a reasonable answer.
A +3 or +4 size giant is a good top end enemy to throw at a somewhat new party. Unless the magi is an over the top min-maxed killing machine, it's probably pilums, as there's magic might to go through. Making the pilum a softener for the archer death blow (which attack magic becomes without wound penalty affects) is a disappointing outcome. I said in another thread it's Ars Majica, not Ars Thumpica and I stand by that.
4 Likes
Magic already is meaningful. There is a wide repertoire of targeted magic where the wound penalties already apply. Why does one particular class of direct damage magic have to be meaningful?
It may be called Ars Majica, as you say, but yet the magi are not the principal character of the game. The covenant is, and the while that may mean a pact between magi only, the covenant as a character is more than the magi. A major appeal of Ars Magica to many players is the troupe play. The magi are immensely powerful, and yet there are things their grogs do better.
Like what magic? Nearly all damaging spells use the non-combat damage mechanism.
The invisible sling of vilano is the most obvious canon example, but the principles and guidelines are clear enough to invent more.